Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BWB-F For FedEx And UPS?  
User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 559 posts, RR: 17
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5334 times:

Scott H just reported that the Boeing customers for the BWB-F that was recently reported about in FI are FedEx and UPS.

Boeing says it has customer for BWB Cargo version
Boeing has quietly said it has a customer for a cargo Blended Wing Body airplane and is working with at least one other airline—something missed by mainstream media but reported by trade magazine Flight International. We’ve learned that FedEx is probably the customer and UPS is likely the second airline. Both had been customers of the Airbus A380, but canceled the orders after the delays pushed delivery to 2012-2014. The BWB freighter might be available as early as 2015.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn060507.pdf

Another "game changer?"

-n1786b

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5310 times:

I'd personally be surprised if we see this project happen anywhere near the timeline outlined in this article.

[Edited 2007-06-05 11:35:27]


Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5274 times:

Hi N1786B,

I saw this and another article in Flight recently talking about Boeing accepting that a 777-400 would be possible. You might ask what the connection is. I wrote a post 2 days ago that was deleted as my subject heading was not correct. I had received one reply at the time.

My point was this. I found it very strange that Boeing having just mopped up the A380 F orders to then announce the reality of the BWB F. At the same time accepting (with overt pressure from Ufar Haizey (sp)) that a 400 seater -400 version of the 777 could be built. Note ,They have only managed one small order for the 747-800I in 2 years. I would have thought that both these announcements would harm the future chances/sales of the 747-800 series -no? So why publically talk about such things?

We know that airlines (like BA) always wanted the -400 version for pax. Furthermore if a passenger BWB was built it would spell curtains for both the 747 and 380. Certainly from the data so far released the BWB (freighter or passenger) would be 25% more efficient than existing models.

I think there is something very odd about these announcements. Could it be that they now accept that the 747-800 will never sell much and that the 777 will need a complete replacement in the long term to block the A350. I wonder if a combination of the dash 800 and the dash 400 are no more than (good) stop gaps to keep production going (and Airbus sales down) over the next 10 years until Y3 A bwb comes out. I note the the 2 flying scale prototypes are scaled from a 450 seater single deck passenger study. Hmmmmm


User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1916 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5244 times:

Quoting Parapente (Reply 2):
My point was this. I found it very strange that Boeing having just mopped up the A380 F orders to then announce the reality of the BWB F.

I think Boeing is presenting this plane as a freighter only. If I recall correctly there was a study which showed that passengers would become sick when flying in the BWB. This had something to do with windows, lighting and movement of the frame. So, I think you should see this BWB as a cargo plane only at first. Of course, they will be doing research and may use this design to create the Y3 or something.

Other questions arise with the 2015 time line. Can Boeing afford working on the B737RS, BWB and Y3 at the same time, or is this BWB going to evolve in the Y3? I think these are the questions here. However, if they can use the BWB for the military as well, funding it might be a little easier.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5225 times:

I believe BWB is Y3 - always have done.But could be wrong. However lets say that BWB stays for now "F" only. OK that spells the end -on current sales make up- of the 747. We know that the 777 is dead when the A350-1000 comes. So they must produce something else to replace these aircraft.

So a 777-400 (the last 777) would seat --400. The 747-800i (the last 747)will seat 475 (LH state). And the BWB is designed around a 450 seater study. Now that seems toooo much of a coincidence to me. They always stated that the Y3 would replace both. Whose to say they have changed their minds. I don't believe they have not for a moment..


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6824 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5179 times:

Very interesting news; sounds like a very good strategy. Make it first as a freighter and test it with passengers. If it is found that passengers like it, go ahead and offer it. If it is unacceptable (as LifelinerOne indicates) then stick with the freighter and make a conventional tube as Y3. I hope this is true, and I even hope it works for passengers, even though that will probably cause me to lose my bet with Keesje as to which of the A380 or 747 will be built last.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1916 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5137 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
Make it first as a freighter and test it with passengers. If it is found that passengers like it, go ahead and offer it.

From a passengerview flying in a BWB wouldn't be that attractive as it would mean less available window-seats and maybe more seats in a row, because I can't imagine that they would fit a plane with 5-6 aisles.

If Boeing doesn't succeed to make the BWB attractive for passenger airlines, designing and building the Y3 would mean big money and they will be stuck with a plane which is suitable for the freight market only, which is a little more limited than a combined pax/freight market.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 4):
I believe BWB is Y3 - always have done.But could be wrong.

Well, I think you can be right, however Boeing will need to do a lot of talking to persuade passenger airlines that a flying BWB is the plane to operate. Okay, so the operating costs are good, but I think passengers will be somehow harder to persuade due to the lack of available window seats. These seats are still the seats who are sold out the fastest in all classes. It would need a lot of PR to sell this to the public so that your passengers won't be running away to airlines who don't fly the BWB.

Configuring the BWB for passengers will be the biggest challenge. Only the thought of flying with 30 people in a row, divided with 4-5 aisles makes my skin crawl. Somehow it makes me feel that my privacy is even more limited than it is now aboard a "normal" plane.

It will be very interesting to see how this is going to develop. If Boeing is really launching the BWB for EIS 2015 with freighter airlines you can bet that this BWB will also become the new passenger plane Y3. If they do it, it will be a major coup, and it will make sure that Boeing once again makes a brilliant statement in aviation history.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineAogdesk From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 935 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5128 times:

I'd guess that this still very much speculative. 5X tends to be EXTREMELY secretive and guarded when dealing with future plans & strategies.

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4915 times:

Wouldn't a commercial freighter be a logical spin-off from a next-generation BWB tanker/transport/bomber platform? DoD-funded R&D and several hundred companion airframes for the military would make into a very attractive business case for any commercial spin-off.

User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4876 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 3):
If I recall correctly there was a study which showed that passengers would become sick when flying in the BWB. This had something to do with windows, lighting and movement of the frame. So, I think you should see this BWB as a cargo plane only at first.

A full BWB is in my opinion completely unlikely to be a passenger plane. Airbus, TsAgi, Boeing have all investigated this and abandoned the concept repeatedly.

My guess is the current spate of rumors is based on a military RFP for an efficient equipment transport or tanker - given the existing X-48 research. Boeing is seeing an opportunity to shop this project around as a civilian freighter - just like Lockheed did with the L-500.

In my opinion, the next "shape" for passenger planes may be more of a hybrid between tube-with-wings and a BWB. I expect a partial lifting body fuselage, perhaps a "three lifting surface", but still no more than 12 abreast at most.



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineFlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4859 times:

I wonder if Boeing has any potential military customers lined up. A large BWB freighter with three engines would be an excellent replacement for the C-5A.

User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12383 posts, RR: 47
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Parapente (Reply 2):
We know that airlines (like BA) always wanted the -400 version for pax.

We do? How do we know?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4742 times:

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 9):

In my opinion, the next "shape" for passenger planes may be more of a hybrid between tube-with-wings and a BWB. I expect a partial lifting body fuselage,

I too, think that an "intermediate" semi-blend configuration would be offered in the interim, although if public perception and acceptance of the futuristic shape is overwhelmingly positive, then Boeing will forge head-on with the full BWB.

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 10):
I wonder if Boeing has any potential military customers lined up. A large BWB freighter with three engines would be an excellent replacement for the C-5A.

KC-Y & Z and AJACS?......

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...s/AIR_K-X_MACK-type_Concept_lg.gif

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ontest-to-build-cargo-x-plane.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...build-composite-cargo-x-plane.html

[Edited 2007-06-05 22:51:45]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4674 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 6):

Configuring the BWB for passengers will be the biggest challenge. Only the thought of flying with 30 people in a row, divided with 4-5 aisles makes my skin crawl. Somehow it makes me feel that my privacy is even more limited than it is now aboard a "normal" plane.

The concepts that I have seen would have walls between the rows so that there might be only 6 (just a guess) people in a row within a space, with openings to move between the spaces. Kind of like sitting in a room.

Cheers


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24817 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4638 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 13):
Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 6):

Configuring the BWB for passengers will be the biggest challenge. Only the thought of flying with 30 people in a row, divided with 4-5 aisles makes my skin crawl. Somehow it makes me feel that my privacy is even more limited than it is now aboard a "normal" plane.

The concepts that I have seen would have walls between the rows so that there might be only 6 (just a guess) people in a row within a space, with openings to move between the spaces. Kind of like sitting in a room.

Passengers sitting at the outer areas of the passenger cabin would probably be much more prone to air-sickness than on current aircraft. It would be like sitting half way out on the wing, and when an aircraft banks or bounces around in turbulence, the further you are away from the center of gravity, the greater the movement. I think it would be very uncomfortable, especially with no windows nearby.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4582 times:

Regarding rows, isn't it "illegal" to have any passengers more than 2 seats away from a row for evacuation?

I still don't think the BWB passenger version would ever take off (no pun intended), but we'll have to wait for real-life test results if it's ever built.


User currently offlineGAIsweetGAI From Norway, joined Jul 2006, 933 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4472 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 15):
Regarding rows, isn't it "illegal" to have any passengers more than 2 seats away from a row for evacuation?

I still don't think the BWB passenger version would ever take off (no pun intended), but we'll have to wait for real-life test results if it's ever built.

Ah, but who says that the emergency exits have to face sideways, as they do now? (Assuming exits through the floor are feasible enough?)



"There is an art, or rather a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4445 times:

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 16):
Ah, but who says that the emergency exits have to face sideways, as they do now? (Assuming exits through the floor are feasible enough?)

The concepts that I saw had the exits in the aft of the BWB or in the rear.

Cheers


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4436 times:

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 16):
Ah, but who says that the emergency exits have to face sideways, as they do now? (Assuming exits through the floor are feasible enough?)

Wouldn't do to well for a wheels up landing. There might have to be more side exits on a BWB for escape. That way you could get everyone out in time.

The problems I currently see with a passenger BWB are distance from the center of gravity, going to make passengers sick with the up and down motion. And lack of windows, also going to make people sick/clastrophobic.


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4418 times:

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 16):
Ah, but who says that the emergency exits have to face sideways, as they do now? (Assuming exits through the floor are feasible enough?)

Good to think out of the box, but that may be a huge problem in the case of a wheels up landing  Wink



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4409 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
and when an aircraft banks or bounces around in turbulence,



Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 18):
The problems I currently see with a passenger BWB are distance from the center of gravity, going to make passengers sick with the up and down motion.

Perhaps this might mitigate the unwelcome effects somewhat, if and when the technology has matured.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ogy-to-tackle-motion-sickness.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineGAIsweetGAI From Norway, joined Jul 2006, 933 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4376 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 18):

Wouldn't do to well for a wheels up landing. There might have to be more side exits on a BWB for escape. That way you could get everyone out in time.



Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 19):
Good to think out of the box, but that may be a huge problem in the case of a wheels up landing

Good point. How about in the "roof," assuming that the engines don't pose a threat?  Smile



"There is an art, or rather a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
User currently offlineJetjeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1430 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4364 times:

I know Fex has a 757 way over on the south field in Memphis, and some gse equip i guess they practice on. It looks like it was an old british airways with the blue on bottom and white on top.. It sits kinda off near some woods and the new c-5 hanger. Im just wondering if there is going to be enough 757,s on the market to cover the 727,s


i can see for 80 miles
User currently offlineFlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4364 times:

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 21):
Good point. How about in the "roof," assuming that the engines don't pose a threat?

The engines in the Pan Am 747 involved in the Tenneriffe crash 30 year ago could not be shut off. How would you like to have the only available emergency doors position the passengers exiting the aircraft perfectly to be ingested by GE90 or GE Nx engines?


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 21):
How about in the "roof," assuming that the engines don't pose a threat?

Yea, maybe. Which brings up a different question - engine location. So far I've seen four different concepts for engine location:

- The TsAgi design had undermounted engines
- Most current Boeing and Airbus concepts have engines top mounted on struts
- I've seen one NASA design with up to 8 smaller engines in the "wing", similar to the L-1011 tail engine
- Boeing has a smart looking alternative concept with engines mounted partially in the fuselage, called the "boundary layer effect intake" concept



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
25 BladeLWS : Of all the photos of the BWB concepts I've seen the roof is slanted downwards towards the rear where the three engines are. I for one would NOT want
26 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Would that be the ADVENT?..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles.../military-engines-power-surge.html Quote: "The ability to vary the cycle of a t
27 Post contains images CygnusChicago : I'm not up to date on ADVENT, but looks like a related project. I went back and checked my notes. Looks like I was in error. The boundary layer inges
28 Post contains links 3201 : The BL ingestion concept is certainly not new at all -- I don't know the exact dates of the X-48 or BWB-450 programs, so I can't definitively say it
29 Post contains images DeltaDC9 : As to the passengers not having windows thing and the escape thing, take a close look at this concept form the 90s, it is still a reletivley conventio
30 SEPilot : This one looks doable; why hasn't anyone pursued it farther?
31 3201 : People will cite specific technical difficulties, but I think it's mostly political. Part of the reason is that the A380 was launched and took a huge
32 SEPilot : If that is the case it is very unfortunate. But human nature being what it is I'm not all that surprised. If people would just be able to put such pe
33 Lehpron : We are talking about a BWB freighter, but the discussion goes into pax. I think if such a plane were be for pax, I agree with others it will be a hybr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Hasn't Airbus Deleted Fedex And UPS Pics? posted Sun Jan 21 2007 14:30:41 by QatarA340
Fedex And UPS Flight Listings posted Tue Nov 23 2004 06:34:58 by MasseyBrown
Fedex And UPS Uld's posted Thu Feb 13 2003 09:36:11 by Mikeclod
Where Can I Find Flight Info For DHL And FedEx? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 08:30:31 by ATLAaron
Fedex, ABX, And UPS Routes posted Mon Sep 19 2005 13:09:23 by Squirrel83
GE/MTU Plan Prop Engine For 319 And 737 - Spiegel posted Tue May 29 2007 16:40:07 by LHStarAlliance
Where To Find Acmi Rates For CRJ And AVRO's..? posted Tue May 1 2007 21:29:22 by Beaucaire
30Mar07 Order For 777s And 787s posted Wed Apr 11 2007 18:15:32 by WorldTraveler
How Have The Load Numbers Been For F9 And BDL? posted Tue Apr 10 2007 17:44:59 by Golftango
Nwa Underway For Product And Service Enhancement. posted Fri Apr 6 2007 05:52:25 by Nwab787techops
FedEx And UPS - Outlook For The Future posted Wed Nov 26 2008 14:37:54 by 2H4
FEdex And UPS Apply For Additional Mexico Service posted Tue Mar 18 2008 20:17:06 by LAXintl
Rumor: FedEx And UPS Interested In Southern Air posted Fri Jan 4 2013 10:56:17 by rotating14
FedEx And UPS Status posted Tue Sep 30 2008 10:17:46 by Jarhead0863
Fedex And UPS Fleets posted Mon Mar 5 2007 20:24:56 by Brucek
Why Hasn't Airbus Deleted Fedex And UPS Pics? posted Sun Jan 21 2007 14:30:41 by QatarA340
Fedex And UPS Flight Listings posted Tue Nov 23 2004 06:34:58 by MasseyBrown
Fedex And UPS Uld's posted Thu Feb 13 2003 09:36:11 by Mikeclod
Where Can I Find Flight Info For DHL And FedEx? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 08:30:31 by ATLAaron
Fedex, ABX, And UPS Routes posted Mon Sep 19 2005 13:09:23 by Squirrel83